Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

Update to Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources (was: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01))

Ernest ernest at
Wed May 27 08:10:00 UTC 2015


The author has provided an update to the proposal "Out-Of-Region Use
of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" which will be discussed next
week in Tunis:

Douglas, please feel free to summarize the updates & changelog to
the list for the convenience of the readers.


Mark Tinka wrote on 7/20/14 7:07 PM:
> On Sunday, July 20, 2014 01:49:42 AM Kofi ansa akufo wrote:
>>> Mark most small to medium ISPs in our region have only
>>> one upstream
>> provider. As you know, in most cases of such peering the
>> sub ISPs just receive a default route and not the global
>> table.
> Which is not a bad thing. In fact, when I teach BGP Routing 
> workshops together with Philip Smith and others, we always 
> say that if you are single-homed, don't waste too much time 
> and effort on BGP if you have bigger fish to fry.
> And even when you're multi-homed, you can survive quite 
> nicely with partial routing.
>> What I have seen is upstream ISPs and international
>> carriers charging fees when the sub ISPs request
>> receiving the global routing table.
> Again, curious to know who these are. I haven't yet been in 
> a position to meet any such providers, but it wouldn't 
> surprise me that they exist.
>> There have also been
>> numerous occasions where such fees are charged given
>> reasons like "we also have to contact our upstreams to
>> allow your prefixes".
> Well, that is a given. If your service provider does not 
> organize their filters and co-ordinate that with their peers 
> or upstreams, your chances of full Internet access are 
> compromised.
> Service providers are welcome to charge for whatever they 
> want. Heck, they can charge for the typing they have to do 
> when pinging your router to troubleshoot a connectivity 
> issue during turn-up. I encourage my competitors to do this 
> :-).
>> Others also simply dont have well designed core networks
>> to tunnel huge global BGP table to their clients.
>> Anyways these days many ISPs have routing gears which
>> could handle enough traffic than where fast FIB becomes
>> a problem as you pointed out. I do agree with you tough
>> that having routing gears with distributed FIBs
>> implemented on ASICs (which are expensive to own) for
>> speed might be a better reason to charge the clients -
>> BUT in many cases as you stated it is not warranted.
> The problem is if one service providers charges you "extra" 
> for enhancing their hardware while another one doesn't, what 
> do you think is going to happen? 
> That's a rhetorical question :-)...
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list